[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090703130421.646fe5cb@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 13:04:21 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@...el.com>,
Chinang Ma <chinang.ma@...el.com>,
"Prickett, Terry O" <terry.o.prickett@...el.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Eric.Moore@....com, DL-MPTFusionLinux@....com
Subject: Re: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:54:58 +0200
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > That would seem to be a fruitful avenue of
> > investigation -- whether limiting the cards to a single RX/TX
> > interrupt would be advantageous, or whether spreading the eight
> > interrupts out over the CPUs would be advantageous.
>
> The kernel should really do the per cpu binding of MSIs by default.
... so that you can't do power management on a per socket basis?
hardly a good idea.
just need to use a new enough irqbalance and it will spread out the
interrupts unless your load is low enough to go into low power mode.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists